US v. Vane: Vane was kicked out of a “pro-gun prepper militia based in Eastern Virginia” when other members, concerned by questions about building explosives, concluded he was a law enforcement plant. He wasn’t. The militia provided information to law enforcement that resulted in a search warrant being executed at Vane’s home. As a result, he was charged by complaint with attempted production of a biological agent or toxin (ricin). After a preliminary hearing, at which an agent testified and was cross examined, the court moved on to the question of detention. Over Vane’s objection, the Government proffered additional information, upon which the district court (partly) relied in deciding to order Vane detained pending trial.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision to deny Vane release on bail. Vane’s only argument was that the district court had erred by allowing the Government to proffer at the detention hearing, arguing that the statute only provided the defendant with the ability to proffer in such circumstances. The court disagreed, concluding that the context needed to support Vane’s negative inference (that the Bail Reform Act specifically allows defendants to proffer, while remaining silent on what the Government may or may not do) was not evident in the rest of the Act. In reaching that question, the court first denied Vane’s motion to dismiss the appeal, concluding that it was not moot because the court had already issued an order denying relief (in advance of the opinion) prior to Vane having pleaded guilty below.
No comments:
Post a Comment